×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

168 comments

Thats got to be wrong... (2)

Brad1138 (590148) | about a year ago | (#42015201)

That has to be TB, even then, shoot, I'll store a couple TB for someone for 3 grand each.

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015215)

May be they offer unlimited gigabit bandwidth with it?

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (-1, Flamebait)

durrr (1316311) | about a year ago | (#42015459)

Maybe they are corporate jews of the kind that can't see progress because their nose renders them practically blind to reality?

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42017449)

Why are you such a clueless asshole? This is a rhetorical question, in case you are too stupid to figure that out.

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (4, Insightful)

nzac (1822298) | about a year ago | (#42015591)

Depends on the QOS requirements.
They might have to pay out a grand for every 30 seconds you can't get your data or there is too much latency.

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (2)

EdIII (1114411) | about a year ago | (#42015795)

Even so, 3 grand is a LOT for just 1 GB. For that price you can probably have your own CDN, not to mention huge levels of fail over and redundancy.

That price is the upper limit of QOS for storage and I am willing to bet that Amazon does not even have something comparably expensive.

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (1)

nzac (1822298) | about a year ago | (#42016139)

Yes, someone else should be doing it a lot cheaper for more data.
Still, $3000 is an absolute bargain compared to trying to do this as a one off your self.

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#42016081)

how many providers of any cloud service actually reach anywhere near their advertised 5 or 6 nine availability?

QOS in terms of availability is mostly just marketing hype

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (1)

nzac (1822298) | about a year ago | (#42016593)

No application i can think of needs 5 nines which could by why it something like this remains so expensive.
If only say 1000 companies need this service then 3M a year in revenue is pretty terrible when you consider the costs of providing this service, the insurance can't be cheap.

QOS in terms of availability is mostly just marketing hype

Not when compensation is specified in the contract.

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#42016795)

that's why compensation is required... the service provider and the customer already know it can't be guaranteed and nobody would pay their exorbitant prices without compensation, so really its something like "5 nines availability, except when its not (which we compensate for but which you also pay for in higher service fees)"

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (1)

nzac (1822298) | about a year ago | (#42017133)

It provides an incentive for the service provider to provide their stated uptime.
I know as the customer they will be working hard to ensure they keep their service up so they make a profit for the year. Also, I know if it goes down some of my losses will be covered.
The alternative is best effort where the only power I would have is to move to another company. If I was to pay them extra I would not be able to ensure they were putting in any extra effort to maximize up-time, without going though the hassle and inefficiency of making a contract of the kinds of redundancy i want giving the provider no flexibility.

$3000 is not that much to a corporation that needs reliability, employing someone extra and buying the hardware would not even be close.

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42016185)

Nope, I'm also a SF user, and can confirm the $3k/GB rate. This is for data ::DATABASE:: storage, not just random data storage. So think of it as $3K per year for each GB of hosted database. Their rates for that are much cheaper, though still extortionate, and their entire business model seems prefaced on nickel & diming customers for everything from these ludicrous storage rates to very low limits on daily API calls without paying more. Sugar CRM and other competitors are much better options.

Re:Thats got to be wrong... (5, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#42016491)

That has to be TB, even then, shoot, I'll store a couple TB for someone for 3 grand each.

Will you still be willing to do that, when they inform, they need you to manage backup of the data, and meet a performance SLA at all times (even in case of hardware failure); and that a defined transfer rate has to be achieved, no matter how many requests per second to read and write to/from that dataset, E.g. all I/O requests have to succeed, and the delay must be kept under 50ms, and the storage must be performant even at 20,000 requested IOPS at 64KB requests of any arbitrary access pattern with queue depth of 128?

it's not really just storage (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#42015219)

There's a brief explanation here [architech.ca]. The gist of it is that Salesforce.com's storage charge is charging you for the storage plus the expected transactions/querying that you'll do on the larger amount of data. I suppose they could break out storage charges and transaction/query charges into separate billing items, but they seem to prefer to charge based on just the amount of data, perhaps assuming that overall workloads scale roughly with total data-set size, making it a good billing proxy.

The other reason is that salesforce.com is targeted at The Enterprise, where anything below five digits is noise.

Re:it's not really just storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015253)

Well that debunks the OP pretty well enough...

Re:it's not really just storage (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015275)

It's worth noting that companies waste storage like crazy in Salesforce. Give your sales staff free reign, and you'll easily use that space up on PDF's, gigantic image assets for email designs that change every other day, etc.

I think the deal is that they're really not in the storage business. If you're using the software the way it's intended you're unlikely to hit your limit, since simple records in a database take up no space.

If you're making a new PDF quote, storing it in SF's service, then emailing your clients an HTML email that changes every two days, with quote PDF's attached out of SF... you'll end up hitting the ceiling quick.

Re:it's not really just storage (5, Interesting)

lucm (889690) | about a year ago | (#42016797)

It's worth noting that companies waste storage like crazy in Salesforce. Give your sales staff free reign, and you'll easily use that space up on PDF's, gigantic image assets for email designs that change every other day, etc.

The role of IT is to take care of the monster, not tame it. When IT takes action to bring down storage "waste" (be it in SF or in mailboxes) on its own, it's like having the office administrator go around making sure people use both sides of the pages in notebooks and that people stop doodling on post-its while taking calls because it's waste.

Did you ever work in a company where facilities people decided that lights should be motion-sensor-activated after 6pm? Or a company where cafeteria people decided that there is no need to stock both milk and cream for coffee? Or a company where architects found out that by shrinking parking stalls just a few inches they could fit a few more cars in the underground parking? If you expect the sales staff to put links in emails instead of files attachments or if you want to impose a quota on mailboxes you have fallen for the same flawed logic as facilities people, cafeteria people and architects. You lost sight of the value chain and you miscalculate what is and what is not true waste.

IT should be there to offer training and provide guidance but in the end it's a support function, not a business driver. IT is there to support the sales staff, not school them or patronize them. If IT believes that a business process is suboptimal and should be addressed, there is a chain of command for that; you prepare a nice spreadsheet with itemized expenses and you run that up the chain. If the person in charge determines that the waste is in fact unacceptable, he/she will initiate a change.

$3000 per year = about $12 per working day. One can probably save more by shopping for a better long-distance calls provider than by making noise about those rascals in sales who make too many PDFs.

Re:it's not really just storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42016881)

Did you ever work in a company where facilities people decided that lights should be motion-sensor-activated after 6pm? Or a company where cafeteria people decided that there is no need to stock both milk and cream for coffee? Or a company where architects found out that by shrinking parking stalls just a few inches they could fit a few more cars in the underground parking?

Yes. I have assumed that is the norm since I started working a real job (6 years ago). Actually the lights are on motion sensor 24 hours a day, sometimes the lights in the restroom go off if you take more than 5 min taking a dump. If you want milk or cream in your coffee you can bring your own, otherwise it's powdered creamer. If I didn't drive a compact, I wouldn't be able to get in/out of my car.

Re:it's not really just storage (3, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#42017521)

The role of IT is to take care of the monster, not tame it.

What gives you that idea? You assume IT has the same role in every organization? Bad assumption.

it's like having the office administrator go around making sure people use both sides of the pages in notebooks and that people stop doodling on post-its while taking calls because it's waste.

When the office administrator is given a fixed budget for the purchase of post-it paper, the admin might impose a limit on the number of post-its each department has access to.

Or a company where cafeteria people decided that there is no need to stock both milk and cream for coffee?

If management tells the cafeteria people to reduce their food costs, by reducing their budget, the cafeteria/food department may do just that.

IT should be there to offer training and provide guidance but in the end it's a support function, not a business driver. IT is there to support the sales staff, not school them or patronize them.

Nonsense. IT is there to provide infrastructure for data processing, and efficient data processing is a crucial business driver that can provide competitive advantage.

That means the IT department allocating their IT budget in a manner that maximizes organizational efficiency is to be expected; new productivity-enabling improvements to systems protection against security threats, and provisioning of local storage, over purchase of overpriced disk space on remote web site.

Re:it's not really just storage (1)

lucm (889690) | about a year ago | (#42017583)

IT should be there to offer training and provide guidance but in the end it's a support function, not a business driver. IT is there to support the sales staff, not school them or patronize them.

Nonsense. IT is there to provide infrastructure for data processing, and efficient data processing is a crucial business driver that can provide competitive advantage.

No it's not, it's merely a prerequisite, which makes IT at most an enabler, not a driver. And in most organization IT is not even an enabler, it's a cost center and in some cases a straightforward liability.

That means the IT department allocating their IT budget in a manner that maximizes organizational efficiency is to be expected; new productivity-enabling improvements to systems protection against security threats, and provisioning of local storage, over purchase of overpriced disk space on remote web site.

So you define productivity-enablement as using local storage instead of a "remote web site"? That's pretty weak, especially since SF and other SaaS/IaaS are in high demand specifically because in many organizations the local staff is not agile enough or is simply too expensive.

Re:it's not really just storage (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#42017143)

If you're making a new PDF quote, storing it in SF's service, then emailing your clients an HTML email that changes every two days, with quote PDF's attached out of SF... you'll end up hitting the ceiling quick.

In other words, using the CRM as something more than merely an elaborate rolodex (which is why people have CRM software instead of a rolodex in the first place).

Yep. That's Salesforce's model

Have an inordinately busy month? Just SLIGHTLY edge over your quota in some way, shape or form? You've just been upgraded to a different (see MORE EXPENSIVE) tier of service without being able to back down.

Re:it's not really just storage (1)

Kenja (541830) | about a year ago | (#42015407)

Yea, I was gona post much the same thing. Salesforce is not like dropbox. In addition to the stuff you listed the extra storage is redundant, backed up, and can be replicated into sandbox environments.

Re:it's not really just storage (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year ago | (#42015553)

Dropbox uses S3, which does store data redundantly.

Re:it's not really just storage (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about a year ago | (#42016395)

> Dropbox uses S3, which does store data redundantly.

Uh huh. And their SLA requires them to pay you what compensation should they lose your data?

Re:it's not really just storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42016199)

Different type of storage: PDFs, images, etc. all come under document storage, which has higher limits and more reasonable rates (though still extremely high). The $3k/GB/Year is for data. So, if your salesfolks are using the system correctly, generating lots of leads, you hit the cap faster.

Re:it's not really just storage (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year ago | (#42016981)

Compared to Google, drop box is a rip off. I don't know why anyone would use it. It is like a drug. They give you a small amount for free, then charge when you get a usable amount. Google gives you a lot for free.

But, like other have said, the cost of salesforce is not just storage. It is reliable storage, and bandwidth. There has been many times when I have not been able to get to Google reliably. Sometimes even their servers get bogged down. I presume that if this happened with salesforce there would be repercussions. Likewise, Google, and i suppose even dropbox, is not going to do much if the data is gone. Sure they have redundant facilities, but that in no way guarantees that every bit of data will be restored, or it will be restored quickly. I have been in situations where a full restore has taken a couple days. Not a huge deal for me, but for what happens if one comes in monday and can make not sales calls?

Re:it's not really just storage (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about a year ago | (#42015509)

Try explaining to a non-technical business user what a transaction is, let alone charging for them.

Try explaining to non-technical business users why salesforce.com is charging $3000 for 1GB when a 8GB USB drive costs $10. Guess what, you'll have to explain them what transactions are.

Re:it's not really just storage (1)

Mr Z (6791) | about a year ago | (#42015587)

I imagine you're also paying electricity, maintenance, serving, mirroring, backups, etc. as opposed to getting an empty, unmaintained, unpowered, unconnected hard drive for that price.

Re:it's not really just storage (5, Insightful)

Michalson (638911) | about a year ago | (#42015827)

To expand on this Salesforce.com has two different blocks of storage allocated for any Salesforce instance. One is data storage which is for tables and you start at 1GB for your database. This is where the quote of $3000 for each additional GB comes from. The other is file storage, where you save PDFs and other record attachments. You start off with 30GB and it is much more in line with normal cloud data storage prices. Your usage of both is displayed seperately on your companies Salesforce admin page.

As the parent said the cost of that 1GB is not really the disk space but the expected transaction cost in terms of servers. The number of bytes shown as used is not even based on any actual disk usage (this would be complicated with table structure, overhead, indexes and fragmentation). For most tables they use a formula of 2KB per record - it doesn't matter if it's an contact record which is probably stuffed with much more then 2KB, or a very simple custom sales record containing a name and a dollar amount. There are a few special tables that are treated at 512 bytes per record, like the table containing chatter updates (Salesforce.com's social media like notifications). Taken all together this means that the "1GB" of data allowance is really 250,000+ records, depending on how much is chatter vs. actual records and not anything related to disk space. It's just easier to explain it as 1GB to a management person rather then as a complex relationship between records, transactions and indexes.

SMS (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015227)

$.10 for 142 bytes.

~$700 for 1kb

Re:SMS (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015335)

I suppose the parent is flagged offtopic because of the wrong unit. It should be ~$700 per MB, not per KB.

Or in my case, since SMS costs me $0.25 (send or receive) then a megabyte costs ~$1800.

Sending a gigabyte via SMS would cost me $1.8 million dollars. Plus regulatory fees.

Re:SMS (1)

crossmr (957846) | about a year ago | (#42015393)

Why do people even use SMS anymore? In the age of smartphones it's completely unnecessary. With apps like Kakaotalk, Touch, Whatsapp, and others, it's like bitching that the price of butter churner handles has skyrocketed.

Re:SMS (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015481)

Because SMS works without internet access, dimwit.

Re:SMS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015565)

While I agree with you completely, most carriers bundle their plans to make them look more attractive to consumers.

Most of the time in order.to get a data plan, the bundle that includes SMS/MMS/400 minutes/5GB data for $60. If you just want the voice and data, they like to make it work out more expensive to the consumer.

At least this is the case for the 4 carriers in my area (Saskatchewan, Canada)

Re:SMS (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015593)

Because SMS is universal for anyone with a cell phone. No need to have apps to connect to friends as then you would need App 1 for some friends, App 2 for other friends who don't use App 1, App 3 for other friends who don't use App 1 or 2, and so on.

Re:SMS (0, Flamebait)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42015687)

Internet mail is universal for anyone with a smartphone. If you have the Gmail app, for example, you can send to users of any mail server, and users of any mail server can send to you. Probably the only cell phone users you can't reach with Internet mail are users of sub-$100 phones or users on sub-$300/yr plans.

Re:SMS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015761)

Ah, you mean like my wife, mum, majority of aunts and uncles, etc. Yep I'll try and remember of the 120 contacts in my phone which have smart phones, which have feature phones and which I don't know what sort of phone they have.

Or I could just use SMS, which is free for me and is guaranteed compatible with every single one of those contacts phones.

SMS costs 10 cents each to receive (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42015955)

Yep I'll try and remember of the 120 contacts in my phone which have smart phones, which have feature phones and which I don't know what sort of phone they have.

Email works even if you don't have a cell phone. SMS costs 10 cents each to receive if you're on certain U.S. prepaid carriers that are popular among users of less-smart phones. So unless it's urgent, e-mail is cheaper, and I'll see it and reply once I'm at Wi-Fi.

Re:SMS (2)

davidwr (791652) | about a year ago | (#42015765)

Internet mail is universal for anyone with a smartphone

SMS is all but universal for anyone with a dumb or semi-smart (aka feature, aka semi-dumb) phone.

Besides, I don't know if the person on the other end has an email-enabled phone, I don't know if he's got a good data plan or a horrendously expensive one, and I don't know if he's got a teeny-tiny keyboard and no touch-screen that make accessing email extremely painful for him.

Oh, and even if he has a smart phone with free email and a touch-screen, he may not have his email set up to ring whenever I mail him. He probably does have SMS set to ring, and he may even have a special ring-tone for my number.

Re:SMS (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42015971)

I don't know if he's got a good data plan or a horrendously expensive one

Nor do you know if someone has a good SMS plan or a horrendously expensive one.

I don't know if he's got a teeny-tiny keyboard and no touch-screen that make accessing email extremely painful for him.

Nor do you know if he's got a teeny-tiny keypad and no touch-screen that make replying to SMS extremely painful for him, even with T9.

Re:SMS (1)

omglolbah (731566) | about a year ago | (#42016067)

Well, for me it doesnt matter. Norwegian carriers do not charge for receiving texts or for receiving calls.
The sender/caller pays for that.

Re:SMS (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year ago | (#42016073)

At least you can read SMS if you don't have a good way to reply.

If you are like many people, you use a web-based email service. On some phones - particularly many feature-phones that don't have a "mail" program that syncs with your particular web-mail - that's a pain to log in to just to see if you even have mail.

At least with SMS you can be pretty sure the recipient doesn't have to do anything special to read the message other than hit a few buttons.

Re:SMS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015785)

Sub $300/year plans? Data plans run about $20/mo per line. One line alone would cost $240/year. Try to having 6 lines to pay, that adds up to $1,440/year just for the data. So, no, I don't have internet access on my phones. At least I have unlimited voice, text/pic/video messaging for all 6 lines for only $180/mo and great nation wide service.

Why use SMS? (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year ago | (#42015741)

Because if I don't hit my SMS+talk "units" ceiling, I pay for them whether I use them or not.

Re:Why use SMS? (1)

crossmr (957846) | about a year ago | (#42015931)

So what? I assume it's part of the basic service fee package? Just ignore them, and get on with your life using an SMS replacement. Or you could spend your days whinging on slashdot about the price of vaccuum tubes.

I get 250-300 messages each month, and I've got like one contact who does not have a smartphone. That's more than sufficient to take care of any texting needs with them, everyone else is texted via an app. If you have excessive amounts of contacts without smart phones tell them to crawl out their caves and upgrade.

Re:Why use SMS? (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year ago | (#42016079)

It's not the only reason I prefer SMS over email on the phone.

Read my other comments in this story for other reasons.

Re:SMS (1)

mlts (1038732) | about a year ago | (#42016647)

A number of reasons.

1: It is used often for secondary authentication. If my main smartphone dies and I switch SIM cards, I can still log into banking and transaction sites, even if I'm using the $14 Nokia prepaid special with my existing SIM card stuffed in it. If I'm using an app, then I'm screwed for the most part if my smartphone breaks.

2: It is the lowest common denominator for messaging. If a phone has GSM, it will accept text messages.

3: They have a very high chance of being delivered, even if other data-based Internet messaging is down. This point was driven home here in Austin when my cell phone's network was unusable (100,000 Formula 1 fans with cellphones tend to tax towers.) SMS messages got through without issue.

One can compare SMS to Facebook messaging. SMS tends to work from device to device. FB requires a full network stack, connectivity to their servers, SSL, and a lot more infrastructure to same the "WTF LOL" text.

4: Yes, they are insecure, but they offer a decent second channel. What would help security would be OpenPGP packets that span multiple messages.

Re:SMS (1)

lucm (889690) | about a year ago | (#42016489)

It should be ~$700 per MB, not per KB.

It looks expensive but a SMS is like a phone call, it can transit across a few telcos and maybe an aggregator or two in between. So that 10 cents is split between many players who have an expensive infrastructure to maintain (including databases where the message is often stored for a long time, and can be read by lots of bored developers or sysadmins).

Still cheaper than a postcard for something faster and with the same level of confidentiality (i.e: none).

Re:SMS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42016909)

I have Verizon Wireless without a texting option. They want $2 per text, sent or received without a plan (and the plans start at $30/mo for a family or $20/mo individual, and I sent exactly 1 text in the past 3 months, and received 3), or $5 per text sent or received in a foreign country. That f**ker is blocked. If you want to text me, I have a pinger account.

You're not paying for the storage (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015233)

You're not paying for the oxide molecules on the platter -- that cost is too trivial to bother with. What you're actually paying for is having the data backed up, the computers to make it available when you need it, and the bandwidth to allow you to upload/download it whenever you want.

dom

Re:You're not paying for the storage (5, Insightful)

obarel (670863) | about a year ago | (#42015325)

Yes, I just found out that the Ritz are charging £6.50 for a cup of tea, while at Tesco they sell 80 tea bags for £0.27 (0.3375p each).

Well I never!

Have you ever... (3, Informative)

pev (2186) | about a year ago | (#42015293)

... Looked at the cost of SMS messages comparing price vs bytes?! According to wikipedia, average cost is around $0.11 per 160 char message. So, excluding headers and taking k as 1024, thats $738,197 per gigabyte. Now think about what a roaming message costs... Maybe triple that? Thats got to be a great little earner for the telcos...! Not to mention, sms was designed to take advantage of unused bandwidth space anyway, so its all gravy!

Re:Have you ever... (2, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year ago | (#42016001)

This is typical monopolistic/cartel behavior. It is a symptom of a closed environment where there is no effective competition.

This is the business model that dominates a large segment of the US economy, and is endemic in telecommunications, software, finance, agribusiness, pharmaceuticals, health care and energy. Companies in these areas using lobbying to suppress competition and write legislation that guarantees high profit margins.

This kind of corrupt system ultimately leads to extreme failure. The worldwide economic meltdown in 2008 was the direct result of a greedy, corrupt and incompetent financial system with a primary goal of making insiders as personally rich as possible. The meningitis epidemic is a more recent example. In both cases business groups were able to shut down all effective regulation.

Sadly nothing is really changing. All the fines for the failed financial business are a joke. JP Morgan just paid a $296.9 million dollar fine for misrepresenting mortgage backed securities, which is meaningless considering their market capitalization is $150.27 billion dollars. Similarly, BP was just fined $4.5 billion for the Gulf oils spill. This sounds like a lot, but that amount is around the profit for a quarter of a year. Considering that in 2005 BP had an explosion at a Texas refinery that killed 14 and injured over 175, it is clear that the corporate culture did not really change. Until the people running these dangerous corrupt organizations are held personally responsible we will continue to see this occur on a world wide basis

Re:Have you ever... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42017329)

... Looked at the cost of SMS messages comparing price vs bytes?! According to wikipedia, average cost is around $0.11 per 160 char message. So, excluding headers and taking k as 1024, thats $738,197 per gigabyte. Now think about what a roaming message costs... Maybe triple that? Thats got to be a great little earner for the telcos...! Not to mention, sms was designed to take advantage of unused bandwidth space anyway, so its all gravy!

This is completely incorrect. I work in the industry. SMS is no different than a normal voice packet.
The reason you can only type 160 chars in an SMS is because 160 bytes are the limit placed on 20ms of typical voice packet.

So if you are paying 25c a min for voice, that's 3000 packets ( 60 seconds * 1000 ms /20ms). Thus cost per SMS is 0.008 cents.

25/.00833 is the markup they charge ... 3000%

Now, when I tell you that 25c a min for voice is already marked up, it will blow your mind away even further

Text Messaging (2, Insightful)

lobiusmoop (305328) | about a year ago | (#42015299)

At 20c per message (160 bytes), works out at $1310 of income per megabyte of traffic. [wikipedia.org] for the telcos. Talk about a cash cow.

Re:Text Messaging (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#42015889)

At 20c per message (160 bytes), works out at $1310 of income per megabyte of traffic. for the telcos. Talk about a cash cow.

Not to mention that both the sender and receiver are usually charged 20c for the message. So $2620/MB is the real limit.

Re:Text Messaging (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#42015907)

True, but you're paying upkeep for a network running 24x7x365 with coverage in all sorts of weird places to send and receive those messages. It's a bit like taking the minimum price of a post card at the post office and multiplying to get cost/kg. At least here in Norway which is pretty expensive you only pay about 8c/message and you can typically buy much cheaper in bulk and/or various "friends & family" packages to a limited set of numbers. I think the cheapest mega-pack I've seen is 5000 texts for 43 USD (250 NOK) or about 0.9 cents/message. The 8 cents include the "called for $5, texted for $2, expects 24x7 coverage everywhere they go" crowd - it's not the MB cost that's the cost of delivering.

Re:Text Messaging (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42016769)

That network is already paid for in a standard voice-only plan.
Text messages are carried on the control channel of the cell phones networks, so cost the carriers nothing. They're pure profit.

News flash (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015311)

The cost of maintaining storage has little to do with the cost of raw hard drive capacity.

Ripoff Prices -- Roll Your Own Solution (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015315)

I agree that storage prices are rifdiculous. It's not like storage is that expensive anymore. People are wont to gouge others if they can. Dropbox only gives 2GB for free and 100GB for 199 a year. That's a ridiculous price. I could roll my own solution that's better for about the same AND have no one but me controlling my data. There is always the colo idea. Buy a cheap 1U, pack it full of HDDs and colo that bad boy. Do it at two different locations and use rsync or other tool of choice to maintain your own private.

I can see there being a cloud backlash of sorts coming because of carelessness with important data. I have none of my data in the cloud until I can figure out how to roll my own solution that I alone control. Anyone that doesn't control their data doesn't "own" their data. Someone else does. I could care less what the storage companies say. If you don't control the means of storage, you are at a loss already.

Storage should be cheap, though.

Re:Ripoff Prices -- Roll Your Own Solution (5, Informative)

jockm (233372) | about a year ago | (#42015415)

Dropbox only gives 2GB for free and 100GB for 199 a year.

100G on Dropbox is $9.99/mo or $99.00/year. 200G is 199 a year...

But you are paying for backups, file versioning, sharing features, API, reliability etc. I pay for Dropbox because I don't want to admin a box and worry about all of that. For me at least it is worth it. If it isn't for you, then you don't have to use it...

Re:Ripoff Prices -- Roll Your Own Solution (1)

Panoptes (1041206) | about a year ago | (#42015701)

could care less --> couldn't care less

Give him a break (2)

davidwr (791652) | about a year ago | (#42015779)

could care less --> couldn't care less

Cut the guy a break.

He was about to go over his data limit and would have to pay another $3000 for the next 1 GB.

Re:Ripoff Prices -- Roll Your Own Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42016205)

I could roll my own solution that's better

. I have none of my data in the cloud until I can figure out how to roll my own solution that I alone control.

So you *could* do your own, you just haven't gotten around to figuring it out yet?

you pay for "the cloud !" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015359)

but dude "It's in the cloud" !

It might be expensive but it keeps execs off your back who read about how your company needs to be 'in the cloud' whilst sitting in first class reading CEO magazine.

SAN Does cost big (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015403)

$30k per TB for EMC SAN space.
That is is not a consumer hard disk.....

Re:SAN Does cost big (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015499)

A TB of space should be about $100 year. I can buy a TB drive for less than that, actually. Storing it should be even less.

Re:SAN Does cost big (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015705)

chances are you don't need an EMC SAN in mommy's basement

Re:SAN Does cost big (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015793)

It's still a ripoff because the companies that offer this stuff know people will pay rather than learn what it takes to roll their own solution. I've done both over the years and now I am moving away from relying on others and relying solely on myself. I like to be in total contro of my data.

I fully believe laws should be set to linit what can be charged for stuff. I'm all for making a mild profit, but not allowing a killing. No one should be living large because of someones' need to store data. It's a sham, just like half of all IT consulting is a sham designed around making a nsty monetart killing.

Re:SAN Does cost big (2)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#42015913)

OK, and how much is the company paying to employ you to roll your own solution?

He's got a demanding mother (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42016041)

chances are you don't need an EMC SAN in mommy's basement

I can see you don't know his mommy. She's very demanding.

Re:SAN Does cost big (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42017147)

I have a EMC Clariion SAN here and it's nowhere near that expensive. Expensive yes, but not that expensive. Not allowed to disclose the exact price but we paid less than a million for about a few hundred TB of storage.

what do you gain with that 1GB? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#42015505)

If you are able to make $10,000 more in sales, then the $3000 is cheap. The price is whatever the market will bear. Didn't you read The Octopus?

I charge similarly (5, Interesting)

holophrastic (221104) | about a year ago | (#42015519)

even without how the data is being used, it needs to be there, and it needs to be acquired, capacity-planned, and it's a part of a large network. In my case, there's a limit to how much storage I can put into one web server. And since I divide my multiple clients across multiple web servers, if 25% of them suddenly jump 25% in their usage, I hit the ceiling really quickly. And since I have huge administrative and risk costs to migrating projects from one server to another, or procuring a new server, there are real costs as a result.

I'm not charging for data storage. I'm charging for an entire working solution. Data storage has a impact on that solution in a manner far greater than it's simple cost. Hey, motherboards are more expensive than hard drives. But motherboards can be replaced in an hour without loss of client data, or just about any software configuration. Motherboards can be swapped. But when a hard drive needs replacing (it doesn't need to be broken, it can just be too small), it's a big ordeal to manage that data throughout the process.

Re:I charge similarly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42016757)

Bill it correctly and I'll be a lot happier.

The current practice of billing does indeed look like highway robbery. It also has the unfortunate consequence of trying to economize on things that shouldn't matter.

I'd prefer to throw a pair of terabyte SATA drives into already present bays on our hosted solution and run most of the backups locally but it costs too much to do it that way due to a poor choice of costing model.

Re:I charge similarly (2)

holophrastic (221104) | about a year ago | (#42016833)

Oh, I couldn't agree more. Alas, my clients have specifically asked me to not bill things correctly. They don't want thinks itemized, and they don't want things explained.

Ultimately, they've got good reason. My side is technical, their side is very much not. They need to justify their expenses, which are my actions, up their chain. And because that chain isn't technical, they want me to bundle, summarize, and obscure to the point where every line item references only the initial business-reason for the project.

It's difficult to take "customer service management" and "fielding customer callls" and "recording customer call actions" and then distinguish between storage, delivery, backup, and reliability. My clients simply don't care about the distinctions -- probably because by the time it makes it to their perspectives, there is no distinction.

So yeah, sometimes, it's up to me to present the option of the cheaper storage and no backup of unimportant data. But it's also up to me to point out that my network services are more reliable when I treat every byte as important, and one day it may become so anyway. So I'd often prefer to have the backup option available on a whim, than to say that engaging backup requires additional resources.

Maybe my clients rely on my to orchestrate the most robust solution meaningful to their scenario, and maybe that's exactly what they're paying for. In which case, it shouldn't matter to you whether they're paying for better storage, or they're paying for possible options and future flexibility. That distinction is of the very same sort that my clients ask me to obscure.

EDI data transfers cost more (1)

compwizrd (166184) | about a year ago | (#42015585)

EDI transfer through providers like Covisint costs far more, though I don't have the numbers available right now.

Pretty stupid to let your data out of the house (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015617)

"cloud" may be a buzz word of the day, but how can the company put pdfs containing presumably sensitive financial and business data to Salesforce storage? Also payroll data, and employee listings. All these are very sensitive information. Who knows with whom Salesforce may share it?

I am not sure what the mentality behind this is.

It is all about the bandwidth (1)

Kotoku (1531373) | about a year ago | (#42015635)

I pay about $100 for a server I could build myself for about $500. Why? I need the bandwidth. Roughly 10mbps to myself, as opposed to my 756kbps home speeds and no guarantee my IP won't change. Throw me a fiber uplink and i'll internalize all my web services.

Re:It is all about the bandwidth (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#42015791)

Roughly 10mbps to myself, as opposed to my 756kbps home speeds and no guarantee my IP won't change. Throw me a fiber uplink and i'll internalize all my web services.

I suppose that works for a personal website. For anything meant to earn money -- think about the issue of security: protection against power loss, multiple redundant uplinks, Enterprise level hardware such as RAID, with trained techs on location, spare servers and other parts on hand, to help address hardware problems or other issues and minimize downtime; business so not directly tied to the fate of your residential location, at the mercy of some thoughtless neighbor with a shovel accidentally hitting your fiber uplink.....

Re:It is all about the bandwidth (1)

Kotoku (1531373) | about a year ago | (#42015881)

Those are other important reasons. Very true. I don't handle hosting for anything missing critical on my own so its easy enough to rsync and point at another server . For smaller projects I've kept an Amazon AMI ready to spool up, connect to the DB and be going again in >5 minutes...but again, nothing mission critical. If so I might pay the big bucks for more redundancy / next to no downtime. As is though, my server hasn't had downtime in a year and counting.

Re:It is all about the bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015911)

Dude, it was only a few weeks ago that we saw very prominent hosting firms along the US east coast, including some major ones in NYC, get absolutely fucked up by what was a relatively minor storm.

It turns out that they're just as vulnerable as hosting stuff yourself. Their backup generators don't do a fuck of a lot of good when they can't get fuel, for instance. Their routing equipment doesn't work well when it's submerged under a few feet of water. They also aren't a good option when their techs have fled for safer ground.

In general, they may be more convenient than running your own hosting, but realistically they are nowhere near as safe as you seem to believe.

Re:It is all about the bandwidth (2)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#42016465)

Dude, it was only a few weeks ago that we saw very prominent hosting firms along the US east coast, including some major ones in NYC, get absolutely fucked up ... It turns out that they're just as vulnerable as hosting stuff yourself.

You've made quite a logical leap there. Yes there are still large-scale disaster conditions under which a commercial hosting provider may still experience downtime.

That doesn't mean, that such a situation is just likely to happen as hosting yourself. Such high-intensity disasters are extremely rare in most areas. And you can also choose what datacenter you locate your hosting at -- east coast is not necessarily optimal; further inland, outside of Earthquake, Tornado, Volcano territory may be a safer bet.

Backup generators might have a chance of failing if the fuel is made available by a disaster; or flooding occurs, and the facility was not equipped appropriately. At a well-run commercial datacenter, these incidents are few and far between, or never occur.

You might also note that in case of a massive earthquake, volcano, tsnuami, or other massive disaster, commercial datacenters may be impacted as well.

Residential power outages, blackouts, brownouts are much more common; most residences get them a few times a year, in some cases there may be temporary multi-hour outages scheduled by the electric company to perform line maintenance. Damage or outage to unprotected circuits (single fiber path) is more common.

Having backup power system is expected to save 7 to 8 hours of average downtime per year; with a potential of saving much more downtime, in case of common weather events, solar flares, or blackouts caused by other reasons.

Having backup network links is expected to save a few hours a year in minor failure network downtime, and potentially 18 to 24 hours of network downtime every few years, based on the expectation of catastrophic underground damage to a pull of fiber.

If the amount of revenue and customer loss estimated by approximately that number of downtime hours per year exceeds the cost of commercial hosting, then there is no case for avoiding professional hosting.

Re:It is all about the bandwidth (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about a year ago | (#42015855)

That, and uptime.

A reliable enough (two nines aren't enough) electrical supply, a cooled room and bandwidth do not come for free. Add there the cost making your servers redundant, and soon the rent looks like a bargain for everybody that is not a big business.

what's the most ridiculous rate that you've heard? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015657)

what's the most ridiculous rate that you've heard?

ur mom

cost != drive cost (3, Insightful)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#42015891)

You're forgetting: power, a/c, rack space, fault tolerance, network connectivity/bandwidth to/from said storage, backups. None of that is free or even cheap.

Sure, if you want a single 1 gb drive in someone's data center sitting on a shelf by itself in someone's data center with no connectivity you could get it for the drive cost, but that's not what you're paying for.

What is this, AskReddit now? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015905)

> what's the most ridiculous rate that you've heard?"

What's in that 1Gb? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42015975)

First, let me say that the summary is wrong or, at least, people's understanding of what it is saying is wrong. $3000/1GB is NOT file storage; it is for the 'database' storage. File storage is 500mb / license (at least that's how much our org has...we have 25 licenses and 12.5gb of file storage), which is billed separately than 'data'.
They say '1 GB'...but you need to know what goes in that 1 GB. Each record in Salesforce takes up 2kb, period. Our company has the Enterprise level plan for SF, which gives an object up to 500 fields per record; of those 500 fields, (I believe) up to 10 can be 'long text' fields with up to 32k characters (maximum long text is actually capped at 1.3m characters per record). The 500 fields can include dates, strings (255 characters), numbers, picklists and a few other types. Included with this is the option to track history for up to 25 of those 500 fields, which logs who makes what change and when. All of these fields, filled in completely, with all the history, still only take 2kb of your storage. There is one more tier above Enterprise called Unlimited...it allows 800 fields per object, all still in that 2kb per record.

So, yes, if you look at their '1GB for $3000' price without knowing what that 1GB entails, it seems extremely expensive. I honestly do not understand why they market it in that way...they should market it as $3000 for 500k records.

Those that understand how SF is structured will learn to make use of the structure...you *cannot* think in normal relational database way, because even though those 500 fields take up only 2kb of your storage, the other end is also true. If you have an object with 1 field on it, it will also take up that 2kb. We made this mistake with our initial move to SF from our MySql database. We had a structure of Parent / n Child / n Grandchild with 200k Parent objects. All-in-all, the MySql database is quite small (I'd say around 200k parents, 600k Child, 650k Granchild). Translating that structure directly across to Salesforce cost us a lot of money due to needing all that extra storage...our org currently uses 4GB. We are slowly de-normalizing our database to drop our usage down to 1 parent from (at max) 33 records.

Lucent PBX voicemail (4, Interesting)

MpVpRb (1423381) | about a year ago | (#42016043)

I used to administer a Lucent PBX

Minutes of voicemail cost thousands of dollars

The storage was already physically present on a hard disk in the box

After paying, they "unlocked" a little more of the disk

Re:Lucent PBX voicemail (3, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#42016767)

I remember an electronic typewriter (IBM?) that had built in magnetic storage. It was a late variation of the old Selectrics.

For $500 they had an option that was described as giving you unlimited storage.

Sounds worthwhile, no?

It turned out the standard magnetic storage was a floppy drive with a captive disk.

The $500 option bought you a new plastic faceplate that gave you access to the drive so you could change the floppy.

Re:Lucent PBX voicemail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42017175)

The storage was already physically present on a hard disk in the box

Yes.. it just magically appeared in the box ready for you to use. And after you use it all up, more of it just materializes inside of another box so you can use even more.

Those damn thieves.. charging for stuff that just appeared in their datacenter from the ether.

Most are missing the point here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42016309)

To those confusing this with misc. data: the $3k/GB/Year is for the hosted database, not file storage, which is still overpriced but by not as much compared to competitors as the data costs.

To those saying "Your not paying for the storage, it for the queries/backups/electricity/ etc/" Yes, you are correct, but this still ignores that competitors are much less expensive. Sugar CRM, for example. Or rackspace.com, where a 1GB hosted sql database is just a little over $1k/year.

ibm vm monthly rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42016875)

this one is not about storage, but still a curious number. ibm is charging $2,000 per virtual machine. per month.

Once you do the math this all makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42017447)

You want a drive? Go buy a drive.

Oh wait, you want it online, so now you have to pay for bandwidth. You want it to be failure resilient so now
you have to pay for RAID 5 or RAID 6 and now your per platter costs are higher. OH NO!

Well there we go now. Oh no? Wait/ You want a GUI so you can "manage" your disks from afar on a dynamic
basis. To do so requires 2x the physical disks and a nice slick GUI.

But wait, you want some organization to hook things up for you, put things online, offline, etc. That's going
to cost also.

SO if you want 1TB at a cost of 1TB on a piece of shit 5400RPM ATA drive, there's your lower limit.
If you want 1TB guaranteed, RAIDed, backed up, protected, on faster spindles, it's higher.

FIgher it out.

And quit whining about highway robbery. Nobody is making you buy QUALITY. You're always welcome
to buy the crap you want to compare it to and tell us how you save lots of money... until your data are all gone.

E

are you sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42017517)

it doent include backup, recovery, data transfer, uptime guarantees, quality of service including latency, etc?
also note that 1gb is a HELL of a lot of customer data if were talking about salesforce application data.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...